quote:

quote:
You say that the "Ancient Civilisations of the
[quote]quote:
And why don't we know about it? Surely it would have been broadcast if people were sent back in time.


This news has been broadcast on the internet since November 2001. You found out about it around the 16th August 2005.

We only heard about it because you seemed to have set on on a mission to post the messages on as many website forums as possible. What I was meaning was the news being broadcast by the general media.

quote:

Eddy Pengelly

I thought that i would show some comments made about the work of Roland peqq


aquatus1
Jun 8 2005, 12:08 PM
Since this isn't the debate section, there really isn't all that much to say.
zandore
Jun 8 2005, 04:38 PM
Welcome Eddy to UM Forum.

Interesting but I think this might be in the wrong section.
Discordia
Jun 8 2005, 08:28 PM
There are many scientific problems to this, I highly doubt it holds any truth whatsoever.

Construction of a time machine to begin with. It would take a lot of negative energy to stabilize one, which we don't know how to do. Even if we could, far as we know we could only travel as far back as the machine was made. Also, using negative energy to stabilize a black hole could prove to be diestrous, something passing through the event horizon could disturb it and collapse it, even if it's a small mass. Also, the gravity force is so strong that it would rip apart anything that would attempt this.

The Grandfather paradox- if you alter the past you make the present impossible. Ie, going back to kill your grandfather, making it impossible for you to exist in the future.

Information paradox, In this paradox, information comes from the future, which means that it may have no origin. Ie, traveling back in time to give your younger self information of the future, the information that you gave to your younger self then wouldn't have an origin.

Bilker's paradox, In this a person knows what the future will be therefore does something to make the future impossible.

The sexual paradox- In this paradox you father yourself, which is a biological impossibility. In simple terms, going back and having sexual intercourse with your mother. (sick eh? lol)

It's more likely that we will be able to travel to the future other than the past. To achieve this you must travel at near light speeds, thus resulting time slowing down. If you maintain near light speeds for a few years, much more time would pass here on earth than the time passed by going at high speeds, thus in a since traveling to the future.



JMPD1
Jun 8 2005, 08:58 PM
And, if there were time travellers, and their message kept getting misinterpreted by the primitive locals, why not come back to a more enlightened, educated era? Say, oh I don't know, like now?

Just another load of bunkum. I checked Eddy P's other 3 posts. They are all related to this one, and all point to the same website for linkage. And, you have to sign up for membership BEFORE you can see any of the "reports" and "evidence". mad.gif no.gif
green_dude777
Jun 10 2005, 03:44 PM
You can't fault his theories by trying to disprove time travelling, as he stated that we would do it in the future (which means not present, as in, the knowledge we have NOW would not allow us to travel through time). My problem is, why would the "angel" use a cd rom from 1995 if he's from our future?
Discordia
Jun 10 2005, 04:28 PM
As we know now, the law's of physics have held up. Although it is a possibility we will be able to time travel, I don't think we will ever be able to do so in the past. There are too many paradox's and problems with doing so, would nature really allow us to go back and mess everything up? I think that some things will be deemed impossible for the fact it can disrupt life itself. Traveling to the future however, I think we will be able to achieve by going high velocities, but it's not going to be like all the 'hype' about time traveling, many have a miss-understanding for it.

JMPD1 also has a really good point, why wouldn't they appear at this point in time? Why would they go to the primitive people only? Also think of it this way.. if people DID claim they were time travelers in the past, people would be more gullible to believe it. There were so many superstitions and so forth because of the lack of knowledge about how the world works.

The information that was supposedly passed down to the primitive era also defies the information paradox, therefore it would have no origin, but everything in the past does have origin. This sounds like a group of people trying to deceive the masses into believing in a certain faith. Although it might sound convincing to some, to me it holds no truth.
JMPD1
Jun 15 2005, 10:00 PM
QUOTE(green_dude777 @ Jun 10 2005, 10:44 AM)
You can't fault his theories by trying to disprove time travelling, as he stated that we would do it in the future (which means not present, as in, the knowledge we have NOW would not allow us to travel through time). My problem is, why would the "angel" use a cd rom from 1995 if he's from our future?
*



as he stated that we would do it in the future

Presumably, OUR future. So again I ask: Why wouldn't these mythical time travelers stop by to 'spread the word' in an age where people would be more open to receiving it?

Just another sad, delusional fantasist. Or, a conman preying on the simple minded and gullible. One is to be pitied, but the other should be drawn and quartered.
SilverCougar
Jun 15 2005, 10:27 PM
So... Titor was right?
green_dude777
Jun 16 2005, 03:12 PM
I'm not saying I believe him, as I do not, but saying time travelling isn't possible based on current knowledge isn't a good counter argument. (meaning, if we had the knowledge to do it, we would, so of course at this moment in time we can't time travel to the past, or we would've done it) I then stated what I thought was a big flaw in his theory.......If this "time traveller" left today to go back, why would he use an already ten year old cd-rom?

JMPD, if you could time travel back, would you go to 1990? perhaps 1980? I know I would at least go back a couple millenia. But remember, there was a guy claiming such.....



P.S. I'm not defending this guy or his beliefs, as mine are different from his. And I personally believe that if time travel is attained, it has something to do with string theory OR you can't intervene with the past, as someone has already stated the paradoxes that could arise from messing with one's past.
My recommendation for this topic is to read it, remember it, and store it in the "highly unlikely" section of your brain. original.gif
JMPD1
Jun 16 2005, 03:26 PM
I'm not saying that someday time travel won't be possible, I'm saying that if "Eddy P" is claiming this, his story is flawed.

Let me ask you green dude, if YOU could travel back, why would you travel "a couple of millenia"? To lord it over the primitives, perhaps? Why not go back to a time where a - the language would be relatively similiar, b - folks ''back then'' weren't so superstitious? c - they have no technology to read the data you want to give them, and won't for some 2000 years?

I will file this under "kooky", cross-referenced with "twilight zone"
green_dude777
Jun 16 2005, 03:49 PM
JMPD,
I get exactly what you mean, but if they're trying to shape a majority of human history, you have to start at the beginning or close to the beginning. (the reason I would go back that far is for personal reasons, not to change anything. Mostly so I KNOW what happened in the past, to clear up any speculations and theories)

But I agree a 100 percent with this statement: "I will file this under "kooky", cross-referenced with "twilight zone""


Paranoid Android
Jun 16 2005, 04:14 PM
QUOTE(Discordia @ Jun 11 2005, 02:28 AM)
JMPD1 also has a really good point, why wouldn't they appear at this point in time? Why would they go to the primitive people only? Also think of it this way.. if people DID claim they were time travelers in the past, people would be more gullible to believe it. There were so many superstitions and so forth because of the lack of knowledge about how the world works.
*



QUOTE(JMPD1 @ Jun 16 2005, 08:00 AM)
Presumably, OUR future. So again I ask: Why wouldn't these mythical time travelers stop by to 'spread the word' in an age where people would be more open to receiving it?
*



Perhaps time travel is not that precise. It can't pin-point 10am, Monday Morning 17th July 1987 for example. And the ensuing blind leap brings them to the ancient past.
soundent
Jun 30 2005, 07:36 PM
Maby The reason you might go further back is because comeing here would disrupt the time line, maby to a point where no one is left to get you back, or to a point where time travel isn't possible. So if I where able to go back in time I may be fearfull of my own distruction.

Again, I'm not defending the pervious post!
TaintedDoughnuts
Jul 1 2005, 06:42 AM
Time travellers wouldn't come to this time because we wouldn't believe them, they would have skeptics debating their stories for hours on end, and we'd all think they're nuts. Now, for older civilizations, they could think they're "gods," like UG OOG OG EEG the light god or something(pardon the caveman talk, just trying to make a point grin2.gif), and probably believe everything the time travellers said.

quote:

All these parts do in fact fit into the small end of the box described in the Bible

However and this is the clincher as regards to contenets of the Ark of the Covant which was placed in the Tabernacle abd contained according to you a 386 PC

1 Samuel 5

1And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod.

2When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon.

3And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the LORD. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again.

4And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the LORD; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him.

5Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day.

6But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof.

7And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god.

8They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines unto them, and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? And they answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about unto Gath. And they carried the ark of the God of Israel about thither.

9And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts.

10Therefore they sent the ark of God to Ekron. And it came to pass, as the ark of God came to Ekron, that the Ekronites cried out, saying, They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to us, to slay us and our people.

11So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again to his own place, that it slay us not, and our people: for there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there.

12And the men that died not were smitten with the emerods: and the cry of the city went up to heaven.


Samuel 6

1And the ark of the LORD was in the country of the Philistines seven months.

2And the Philistines called for the priests and the diviners, saying, What shall we do to the ark of the LORD? tell us wherewith we shall send it to his place.

3And they said, If ye send away the ark of the God of Israel, send it not empty; but in any wise return him a trespass offering: then ye shall be healed, and it shall be known to you why his hand is not removed from you.

4Then said they, What shall be the trespass offering which we shall return to him? They answered, Five golden emerods, and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines: for one plague was on you all, and on your lords.

5Wherefore ye shall make images of your emerods, and images of your mice that mar the land; and ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods, and from off your land.

6Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?

7Now therefore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their calves home from them:

8And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return him for a trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and send it away, that it may go.

9And see, if it goeth up by the way of his own coast to Bethshemesh, then he hath done us this great evil: but if not, then we shall know that it is not his hand that smote us: it was a chance that happened to us.

10And the men did so; and took two milch kine, and tied them to the cart, and shut up their calves at home:

11And they laid the ark of the LORD upon the cart, and the coffer with the mice of gold and the images of their emerods.

12And the kine took the straight way to the way of Bethshemesh, and went along the highway, lowing as they went, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left; and the lords of the Philistines went after them unto the border of Bethshemesh.

13And they of Bethshemesh were reaping their wheat harvest in the valley: and they lifted up their eyes, and saw the ark, and rejoiced to see it.

14And the cart came into the field of Joshua, a Bethshemite, and stood there, where there was a great stone: and they clave the wood of the cart, and offered the kine a burnt offering unto the LORD.

15And the Levites took down the ark of the LORD, and the coffer that was with it, wherein the jewels of gold were, and put them on the great stone: and the men of Bethshemesh offered burnt offerings and sacrificed sacrifices the same day unto the LORD.

16And when the five lords of the Philistines had seen it, they returned to Ekron the same day.

17And these are the golden emerods which the Philistines returned for a trespass offering unto the LORD; for Ashdod one, for Gaza one, for Askelon one, for Gath one, for Ekron one;

18And the golden mice, according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, both of fenced cities, and of country villages, even unto the great stone of Abel, whereon they set down the ark of the LORD: which stone remaineth unto this day in the field of Joshua, the Bethshemite.

19And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

20And the men of Bethshemesh said, Who is able to stand before this holy LORD God? and to whom shall he go up from us?

21And they sent messengers to the inhabitants of Kirjathjearim, saying, The Philistines have brought again the ark of the LORD; come ye down, and fetch it up to you.


So the ark was at one point not in the hands of the israelites for seven months and the Phillistines did not want to return it empty!!!!!!

Which poses the question, what happened to the PC?

quote:

1 Samuel 5 & 6

I have not studied these, so I can not comment. But the bit about a gold mouse (yellow coloured mid 1990s mouse) stands out.

quote:

Pertaining to “The Hebrew Old Testament had already been translated and interpreted into Greek before it was again translated and re-interpreted by the Romans” you ask 'By Romans, are we to assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church?'

The Catholic Church came later. It is at the time of the Roman Empire to which I refer, during the first to fourth centuries AD when the Roman Emperor made various religious rules and decisions, and combined a number of existing religious beliefs and practices into their version of Christianity (later ratified as the RCC to which you refer).

quote:

However, copies of commentaries on various parts of the OT, where found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as copies of the NT. This gives us another source for the material.

The commentaries are someone's opinion (probably politically and religiously slanted), and as you say, there were copies. Copies of the same thing (NT) are the same thing, not a new source. If the original (upon which the copy was based) was flawed or corrupted, then that corruption will be in the copy (and any subsequent translations). This is one of the points that Pegg is making - it is apparent (or at least, very possible) that the 'original' texts have been somewhat amended, as examples of these additions have been detected.

quote:

In relation to "During debate with people who say that their use of the Hebrew meanings of the Hebrew Old Testament are accurate, I have found that they seem to not recognize that even the Hebrew language, its usage and translation and interpretation is different from the original 'first edition' Old Testament” you reply "A bold claim, but who exactly were these people? Were they biblical scholars? Where they perchance, Rabbinical scholars? Of course not but your claim does sound impressive that you and Peqq have a superior knowledge over others, which you now want to share with the world"

These other 'people' were from other forums who continually quoted the modern Hebrew usage and meanings from modern electronic versions of the lexicon from Strong's Concordance and other modern similar dictionaries, without taking the original root and etymological meanings from the words stated in the paper version of the concordance into consideration. (Pegg is using the meanings from the paper version.) Some of these people said that they spoke modern Hebrew and Greek. Another person who did not was going to enroll in a Hebrew course to check out the Hebrew way of reading the Old Testament for himself.

So, while admitting they were using the modern version of Hebrew plus the modern interpretations and meanings, they still maintained Pegg was wrong even though they were not cross-checking the actual resource that Pegg was quoting (being the written version of Strong's Concordance). When the same book is checked, Pegg's quotes of the original root and etymological meanings are accurate.

quote:

Your claim does sound impressive that you and Peqq have a superior knowledge over others

It is not mine, nor Pegg's claim - it is commonly known historical fact. "As a language, Hebrew died out around AD 200" confirms my assertion that "the Hebrew language, its usage and translation and interpretation is different from the original 'first edition' Old Testament".
On this web page "http://www.language-museum.com/h/hebrew-ancient.htm" for 'Hebrew, Ancient' - it is designated as (extinct).
"extinct" means 'extinguished, archaic, and obsolete'.
also…
"Classical, or Biblical Hebrew language is known mainly from the Old Testament, which contains texts in Hebrew from over a period of almost 1,000 years. The earliest known inscription, the Gezer Calendar, has been dated to around 925 BC. Hebrew was originally written in the Canaanite-Phoenician alphabet, but in the 4th century BC the Jews adopted from Aramaic the square alphabet still in use. By the 3rd century BC, Hebrew was spoken only in Judaea, and even there in a modified form known as Mishnaic. During the Babylonian Captivities of the Hebrews, Aramaic became their lingua franca. Targum or translation of scriptures into Aramaic was made to accommodate the switch from Hebrew to Aramaic. During the time of Christ, Aramaic was still the lingua franca of the Hebrews. As a language, Hebrew died out around AD 200, and was no longer spoken anywhere. Hebrew was revived as a spoken language to provide a lingua franca for Jews who moved to Palestine in the late 19th century." (source: http://phoenicia.org/semlang.html)
The 'language' and usage cited by the 'scholars' using modern meanings from their electronic versions of Strong's Concordance, are therefore using 19th century understanding of the Hebrew language, and not the original 1230BC usage.

quote:

Therefore one must ask of you, what sources did you use to discover this startling fact that Erasmus was involved with the destruction of first century copies of the bible?

1964 It was finally admitted by the Catholic Biblical Commission that the words “testify…in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one"; 8-"And there are three that testify on earth:…and the” were an addition to 1John 5:7-8 in Jerome's Latin Bible, the 'Vulgate'.

The original words of 1 John 5:7-8 were "For there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
The addition was not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translations prior to the 16th century, and was only found in the Roman Bible written since the 11th century.
This passage was called "the heavenly witnesses" and the addition became known as the “Johannine Comma.”
On page 1928 of the Eight Translation New Testament (Tyndale House Publishers Inc, Illinois, 1974) an account of a fourth century Spanish heretic producing these words, with Erasmus including them in a Greek manuscript, is cited.

The third Greek edition NT went on to be part of the Textus Receptus which was used to translate the King James Bible.

In my original post, for the word "destroyed" read 'destroyed or corrupted'.

quote:

Furthermore what do you make of Martin Luther, who as professor of Greek and Latin, spent time translating the Greek version to Latin, after all it was during this work that he had his revelation which was based upon a translation of a phrase, that lead him away from the Catholic church

I have not investigated Martin Luther so I can not comment. I have viewed a 13th century German Bible and found that it contains the same addition (1John 5:7-8) as the English KJV Bible. So by the 13th century, it appears that Bibles in other languages had also been corrupted. (ie. added words that were not original - to make it look like a certain religious doctrine or belief was biblical.)

quote:

”The Australian researcher Ronald Pegg says that reading the Bible needs to be done from an historical perspective, and not from a religious viewpoint.” Others have been doing that for years but not to try and prove time travel but to make a clear picture of both the bible and its time.

From the discoveries Pegg has made, time travel is a CONCLUSION based upon the visual and written evidence. You have twisted it around and made it look like Pegg was trying to find evidence of time travel so he went to the ancient texts looking for it. There may be other alternatives besides 'a future technological time travel event(s)', but at the moment the fact that ancient texts contain descriptions of modern cd-rom imagery and commentaries of specific modern historical events indicates that somehow the writers of those ancient texts had access to the modern cd-rom and historical knowledge.

quote:

Information supplied by Morse: Result of search for the English word "roll" in ancient Hebrew
1549 gillayown ghil-law-yone' or gilyown {ghil-yone'}; from 1540; a tablet for writing (as bare); by analogy, a mirror (as a plate):--glass, roll.
1556 galal gaw-lal' a primitive root; to roll (literally or figuratively):--commit, remove, roll (away, down, together), run down, seek occasion, trust, wallow.
4039 mgillah meg-il-law' from 1556; a roll:--roll, volume.
4040 mgillah meg-il-law' (Aramaic) corresponding to 4039:--roll.
5372 nirgan neer-gawn' from an unused root meaning to roll to pieces; a slanderer:--talebearer, whisperer.
5609 cphar sef-ar' (Aramaic) from a root corresponding to 5608; a book:--book, roll.
5844 `atah aw-taw' a primitive root; to wrap, i.e. cover, veil, cloth, or roll:--array self, be clad, (put a) cover (-ing, self), fill, put on, X surely, turn aside.
6424 palac paw-las' a primitive root; properly, to roll flat, i.e. prepare (a road); also to revolve, i.e. weigh (mentally):--make, ponder, weigh.
6428 palash paw-lash' a primitive root; to roll (in dust):--roll (wallow) self.
6801 tsanaph tsaw-naf' a primitive root; to wrap, i.e. roll or dress:--be attired, X surely, violently turn.
7088 qaphad kaw-fad' a primitive root; to contract, i.e. roll together:--cut off.
1556 is defined as 1556 galal gaw-lal' a primitive root; to roll (literally or figuratively):--commit, remove, roll (away, down, together), run down, seek occasion, trust, wallow.

It is the latter, that Peqq uses but as can been seen, the Hebrew word has several meanings, which are based upon context. But, as can be seen from the quote of Peqq, there is only one meaning, which fits exactly with what he wants to achieve.

I must first compliment you. You are the first to actually use the book to which Pegg refers - the written version of Storng's Concordance. Others continue to use their electronic versions and wonder why the meanings are different (which is the whole point).
But…
The "latter' (word 1556) as you say IS from where the word used in the Bible comes from. Of coarse it fits exactly with the context - it IS the etymology of the WORD UNDER STUDY.
Hebrew word 4039 means 'a roll'. What type of 'roll' ? So let's find out by investigating its etymology. Word 4039 comes from Hebrew word 1556 which is a primitive root that literally means "to roll". "Roll" means 'to turn, or rotate'. So the type of "roll" to which Hebrew word 4039 was derived, meant to turn or rotate.
In the sentence "roll of a book" this therefore indicates that the book in question has as one of its primitive characteristics - a turning or rotating aspect. Which is what has been used in Pegg's translation.

ALSO…(in reference to your other Hebrew meanings of "roll" in the Bible that you were using to show Pegg's interpretation of a turning or revolving book was incorrect. Did you have your eyes shut or something when you typed out the words from Strong's Concordance ?!)

1549 gillayown ghil-law-yone' or gilyown {ghil-yone'}; from 1540; a tablet for writing (as bare); by analogy, a mirror (as a plate):--glass, roll.
The Mormon witness calls what he is holding in his hands 'a plate'. This plate is reflective like a mirror. This Hebrew word contains a characteristic of the 'bare tablet used for writing'. (A compact disk looks bare on the back (silver), and is more reflective that its plastic case).

5844 `atah aw-taw' a primitive root; to wrap, i.e. cover, veil, cloth, or roll:--array self, be clad, (put a) cover (-ing, self), fill, put on, X surely, turn aside.
"Turn aside" involves some type of turning (as in revolving).

6424 palac paw-las' a primitive root; properly, to roll flat, i.e. prepare (a road); also to revolve, i.e. weigh (mentally):--make, ponder, weigh.
"to roll flat" means it rolls flat (in the horizontal plane) {just like a compact disk}.
"also to revolve" indicates a revolving characteristic.

6801 tsanaph tsaw-naf' a primitive root; to wrap, i.e. roll or dress:--be attired, X surely, violently turn.
I would hate to grab a cd from its drive while it is violently turning (revolving) !!

I must thank you for this, as you have supplied four more words that affirm that the 'roll' of a book has characteristics of turning and rotating, plus it turns violently (as in great speed) and rolls in a horizontal aspect (ie. flat) as well as reflecting like a mirror.

A compact disk does all these things !! This is what the Hebrews were describing in their use of the word "roll".

quote:

But it is apparent that you are trying to introduce subject of the CDRom, but the basis of CDRom drive is that the CD spins around a central axis above the laser reader head. So, to say that the CD rolls within the drive is quite incorrect.

OK, lets use the direct Hebrew meanings. This 'book' violently turns (which a normal scroll does not), it rolls flat (revolves horizontally), AND this particular book is reported by John as being read from the backside and written within.
Rev 5:1 "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals".
The ACM cd-rom does all these things plus the bare side reflects like a mirror. It has its information within, and as you state "it spins around a central axis above the laser reader head" (or should that be violently rolls flat around a central axis).

quote:

Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that it is clear that you have not actually read my original posting but have just copied and pasted the same stuff.

No. I do not comment upon things that I have not studied. Also, quoting the stories from the politically based Talmud when studying word by word descriptions from the Bible is a red herring. In essence, you are trying to use a set of politically and religiously motivated writings to confirm the validity of another set of religious stories (whose motives and source of origin are in question).

quote:

The problem with that, is quite simple when the various quotes are placed into context, as pointed out before, the pictures is somewhat different from what is presented by the PPHC

and

quote:

Once again you have ignored evidence I have provided which shows that the interpretation offered by Roland Peqq is not only false but misleading

"Placed into context" - You are using, and continue to use the religious context that Pegg is saying is wrong. Of course it is going to be different to your understanding of what you believe. Until you sit with the Ancients cd-rom running in front of you and view and compare each picture (and sequences of pictures and sounds) with its (their) comparable description(s) from an ancient text, then of course you are going to keep quoting what you have been taught (ie. the religious context that has been taught over thousands of years).

"Ignored the evidence…" - Just because you keep jumping up and down repeating yourself - doesn't make Ronald Pegg wrong. You are giving your opinion as to what you believe the words and contexts mean, in comparison to those words with the few pictures that I have described and/or presented on the website. But just because your understanding is in contrast to Pegg's conclusions doesn't make him wrong. You keep cutting and pasting the very texts that Pegg says have been misinterpreted, plus you continue to use those same misinterpreted meanings as 'evidence' against what Pegg reports. In some cases it is not even evidence, it is your understanding of what you either believe or have been told concerning the 'stories' about those certain texts and passages.

"False and misleading" - No, just different from what you and I have been told that it means due to us growing up in a religious society and being influenced by religious opinions.

quote:

…but since the book of Mormon was written in 1860, then the Latin meaning of the word is not germane to the argument

I think you better have another look at a printed version of the Book of Mormon. Yes, the English version of the book of Mormon was written in the 1800s, BUT the stories are historical accounts written at the times stated. It starts out with the Book of Nephi beginning an account of a warning to leave Jerusalem - date, 600BC. And so, on.
Thus the original accounts were written in the language of the day. In Jerusalem in 600BC - I understand that it was Hebrew.
In my other post I explained how the language of that era has been displaced by the various Greek, Roman, and Old English meanings and religious interpretations. So the Latin use and meanings are relevant, as our modern languages have somewhat used them as stepping stones to our modern language usage and understanding.

quote:

no where in the book of Mormon does it say that it was written in Hebrew. So, Peqq’s claims about the meaning of the word wilderness in the book of Mormon, is false.

As the original text that was eventually translated into English was originally from a condensed Egyptian version of Hebrew, then it is prudent to use the original Hebrew meanings (as can be found in Strong's Concordance) rather than the modern 18000 American (/English) interpretation.

(Extract, source: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bom/language_eom.htm Book of Mormon Language by Brian D. Stubbs)

LANGUAGES USED BY THE NEPHITES. Statements in the Book of Mormon have spawned differing views about the language in which the book was originally written. In approximately 600 B.C., nephi1—the first Book of Mormon author and one who had spent his youth in jerusalem—wrote, "I make a record [the small plates of Nephi] in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne. 1:2). One thousand years later, Moroni2, the last Nephite prophet, noted concerning the plates of Mormon that "we have written this record…in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyption, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates [metal leaves] had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also…. But the Lord knoweth…that none other people knoweth our language" (Morm. 9:32-34). In light of these two passages, it is evident that Nephite record keepers knew Hebrew and something of Egyptian. It is unknown whether Nephi, Mormon, or Moroni wrote Hebrew in modified Egyptian characters or inscribed their plates in both the Egyptian language and Egyptian characters or whether Nephi wrote in one language and Mormon and Moroni, who lived some nine hundred years later, in another. The mention of "characters" called "reformed Egyptian" tends to support the hypothesis of Hebrew in Egyptian script. Although Nephi's observation (1 Ne. 1:2) is troublesome for that view, the statement is ambiguous and inconclusive for both views.
…Concerning Book of Mormmon composition, Mormon 9:33 indicates that limited space on the Gold Plates dictated using Egyptian characters rather than Hebrew. In Lehi's day, both Hebrew and Egyptian were written with consonantes only. Unlike Hebrew, Egyptian had bi-consonantal and even triconsonantal signs. Employing such characters—particularly in modified form—would save space.

Hebrew was changed to Egyptian script. The original story was known in the Hebrew language. My assertion that Hebrew meanings of words from the Book of Mormon may be utilized is justified.

Thank you for your posting, it is interesting more for what you have ignored from the previous postings. However, that is to be expected from you!

Also, it seems that you have taken time and done some research – well done that man!


“

quote:

1 Samuel 5 & 6
I have not studied these, so I can not comment. But the bit about a gold mouse (yellow coloured mid 1990s mouse) stands out.”
The actual quote reads when put into context reads thusly:

quote:

17And these are the golden emerods which the Philistines returned for a trespass offering unto the LORD; for Ashdod one, for Gaza one, for Askelon one, for Gath one, for Ekron one;
18And the golden mice, according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, both of fenced cities, and of country villages, even unto the great stone of Abel, whereon they set down the ark of the LORD: which stone remaineth unto this day in the field of Joshua, the Bethshemite.

Slight problem, it is the word “mice” that is used, which is plural not singular and the opening line says that the golden mice were to be offered an offering to God. Therefore, once again, a different picture emerges that shows that your interpretation is false. Oh dear, I am repeating myself, but again, that is because you have once again presented a different picture to reality.
However, you touch on “people on other forums” in our postings, I found an interesting quote on one forum,

quote:

“his method of re-writing and re-interpreting the ancient texts to make them fit his outlandish claims remains his most common method of supporting his arguments.”

My most heartfelt thanks for confirming that posters opinion, better still as we shall see latter on that you indulge a fantastic example of what the quote talks about

quote:

The Catholic Church came later. It is at the time of the Roman Empire to which I refer, during the first to fourth centuries AD when the Roman Emperor made various religious rules and decisions, and combined a number of existing religious beliefs and practices into their version of Christianity (later ratified as the RCC to which you refer).”

It would nice and indeed proper if you would provide sources for your information, but it seems that there is no point in asking, since it would not be forthcoming.

The first written mention of the Catholic Church was in an epistle from St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, in 110 AD which predates your claims. In addition, there exist the records of the early ecumenical synods and councils which formulated the rules of the church.

As for combining various aspects of the existing religions into one, I assume you are talking about the battle of Milvian Bridge of 312, where Constantine’s army carried the Labarum on their shields?

The result of this was that Constantine issued the edict of Milan 313, which tolerated the Christian Church within the Empire.


As for your claim that these changes where ratified by the RRC at a later date is somewhat false as can be revealed by a study of the records of the Ecumenical Councils of the catholic Church, including the all important Council of Nicaea of 325, set down many of the basic tenets of the Church’s beliefs. It was at this council that the cannon of the bible were laid down.

Just for your info, the Oxford English Dictionary entry for Roman Catholic:
!

quote:

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed.”

quote:

“(yellow coloured mid 1990s mouse)”

Since computer Mice come in many shapes and colours, and since you do not have a picture of this computer, your claim that it was used by the time travellers , then it is only a belief that it was mid 1990’s mouse.

“However, copies of commentaries on various parts of the OT, where found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as copies of the NT. This gives us another source for the material.

“

quote:

The commentaries are someone's opinion (probably politically and religiously slanted)”
and as you say, there were copies. Copies of the same thing (NT) are the same thing, not a new source.

You miss the important point and that is, they contain quotes from the OT! In addition, these commentaries have lain hidden for centuries, therefore, their value as a research item, is immeasurable because they can be compared to modern version.

There is a fragment of the Gospel of Matthew in the British Museum which is dated from 70ad, this too provides information.

But since these do not fit into your and by that I mean the official PPHC interpretation, then you either ignore it or decry the evidence
.

Also, it seems that you and Peqq are unfamiliar with the concept of both “willing and unwilling” evidence from historical documents. If you had then rather that decry the finds, then you would have realised how valuable they are.

quote:

“These other 'people' were from other forums who continually quoted the modern Hebrew usage and meanings from modern electronic versions of the lexicon from Strong's Concordance and other modern similar dictionaries, without taking the original root and etymological meanings from the words stated in the paper version of the concordance into consideration.”

Care to mention what forums you are talking about? Since if you carry out a advanced “Google” on you name, it comes up with only 130 hits, many of which do not involve any forums, since there is a power lifter of the same name
“ without taking the original root and etymological meanings from the words stated in the paper version of the concordance into consideration.”
Which of course the PPHC does every time!

You paint a rather grand picture of academic study, but can you explain, why you material gets this type of reaction?

quote:

“ Eddy_P, a True Believer in the Aussie quack/charlatan/snakeoil salesman Ronald Pegg”?

(Pegg is using the meanings from the paper version.) Some of these people said that they spoke modern Hebrew and Greek.

quote:

”When the same book is checked, Pegg's quotes of the original root and etymological meanings are accurate”

Not according to the evidence shown both here and on other forums.

"As a language, Hebrew died out around AD 200" confirms my assertion that "the Hebrew language, its usage and translation and interpretation is different from the original 'first edition' Old Testament".

However,

quote:

“but has stayed as the major written language throughout the centuries. Not only religious, but texts for a large variety of purposes: letters and contracts, science, philosophy, medicine, poetry, protocols of courts—all resorted to Hebrew, which thus adapted itself to various new fields and terminologies by borrowings and new inventions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language

quote:

“In my original post, for the word "destroyed" read 'destroyed or corrupted"

And now, having done some research, you decided to change you testimony. However, point out that in your posting you said “Erasmus rewrote some of the ancient Greek manuscripts on behalf of the Roman Empire.” But you have not produced any evidnce to support that claim, nor as we know shall you.


But, lets us get it clear, the reality of the situation is that at the time you claimed Erasmus was carrying out this devilish plan to either destroy or corrupt the Greek manuscripts on the behalf of the Roman Empire, he was in fact living the life of a peripatetic academic.
Which shows that you claim is a falsehood.
More importantly, you have changed your testimony in order to fit you “facts”.

“an account of a fourth century Spanish heretic producing these words, with Erasmus including them in a Greek manuscript, is cited.”

The important point is, that it says Erasmus cites the Johannine Comma, it does not mention the citation in is proper context.

However, I found this,

quote:

Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the Trinity?
By Jeffrey Khoo, Ph.D.
(Date Posted: 6-2000)
(Dr. Khoo serves as academic dean and lecturer at Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore.)
1 John 5:7-8 in the King James (Authorized) Version reads, "For there are three that bear record (witness) in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized words constitute the Johannine Comma (Gk: koptein, "to cut of?’). The Comma proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity — that "There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory" (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q 6).
Why is this verse seldom used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Other references are often cited, but why not 1 John 5:7f? One will often reply, "How can I when my Bible does not have it?" Therein lies the problem. With 1 John 5:7f missing in so many of the modern Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible, it is no wonder that many Christians are ignorant of this verse. And even if they do know that this verse exists, they hesitate to use it because they have been deceived into thinking that it is not part of God’s Word. The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f "is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century." On account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.
It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, "Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices." Edward F. Hills concluded, "It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church."
This leads us to the so-called "promise" of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, "Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or made to order." This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise "has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise." Yale University professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jong, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called "promise" but the fact that he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome." The Erasmian "promise" is thus a myth!

.

quote:

“I have viewed a 13th century German Bible and found that it contains the same addition (1John 5:7-8) as the English KJV Bible.”

Are you now trying to tell us that you can read early German? Sad to say the reality is, that no such document exists

quote:

”From the discoveries Pegg has made, time travel is a CONCLUSION based upon the visual and written evidence.””

How are you trying to convince yyourself or I? For it is not very convincing.


Furthermore, by your own admission, it is not based upon empirical evidence and therefore cannot in be anything other than a belief or theory.

Your claims about Atlantis do not stand up to scrutiny, likewise, you claims about Erasmus, You have been asked to provide proof and have not done so; you decry evidence because it proves you wrong! In addition, you create stories to try and back up your claims. Tsh1 Tsh!

“There may be other alternatives besides 'a future technological time travel event(s)',”
There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy! Words by a Mr William Shakespeare.

But that idea is one often used by various religious groups to overcome hesitancy in those who they wish to convert.

quote:

“but at the moment the fact that ancient texts contain descriptions of modern cd-rom imagery and commentaries of specific modern historical events indicates that somehow the writers of those ancient texts had access to the modern cd-rom and historical knowledge.”

That is only your belief and is not based upon any actual evidence

Here we come to main part, by this further proof of what harte wrote:

quote:

“his method of re-writing and re-interpreting the ancient texts to make them fit his outlandish claims remains his most common method of supporting his arguments.”

What I wrote was this:

Result of search for "4039":
4039 mgillah meg-il-law' from 1556; a roll:--roll, volume.
“Information supplied by Morse: Result of search for the English word "roll" in ancient Hebrew
1549 gillayown ghil-law-yone' or gilyown {ghil-yone'}; from 1540; a tablet for writing (as bare); by analogy, a mirror (as a plate):--glass, roll.
1556 galal gaw-lal' a primitive root; to roll (literally or figuratively):--commit, remove, roll (away, down, together), run down, seek occasion, trust, wallow.
4039 mgillah meg-il-law' from 1556; a roll:--roll, volume.
4040 mgillah meg-il-law' (Aramaic) corresponding to 4039:--roll.
5372 nirgan neer-gawn' from an unused root meaning to roll to pieces; a slanderer:--talebearer, whisperer.
5609 cphar sef-ar' (Aramaic) from a root corresponding to 5608; a book:--book, roll.
5844 `atah aw-taw' a primitive root; to wrap, i.e. cover, veil, cloth, or roll:--array self, be clad, (put a) cover (-ing, self), fill, put on, X surely, turn aside.
6424 palac paw-las' a primitive root; properly, to roll flat, i.e. prepare (a road); also to revolve, i.e. weigh (mentally):--make, ponder, weigh.
6428 palash paw-lash' a primitive root; to roll (in dust):--roll (wallow) self.
6801 tsanaph tsaw-naf' a primitive root; to wrap, i.e. roll or dress:--be attired, X surely, violently turn.
7088 qaphad kaw-fad' a primitive root; to contract, i.e. roll together:--cut off.
1556 is defined as 1556 galal gaw-lal' a primitive root; to roll (literally or figuratively):--commit, remove, roll (away, down, together), run down, seek occasion, trust, wallow.


But…
The "latter' (word 1556) as you say IS from where the word used in the Bible comes from. Of coarse it fits exactly with the context - it IS the etymology of the WORD UNDER STUDY.
In internet forum protocol using capitals means that you arte shouting. Is something troubling you? Do tell?
May I remind that the word etymology refers to the “real meaning of the word” and has been pointed out word 1556 has several meanings therefore the true meaning can never really be known. All you are doing is taking one of the meanings and distorting it to fit you views
1556 galal gaw-lal' a primitive root; to roll (literally or figuratively):--commit, remove, roll (away, down, together), run down, seek occasion, trust, wallow.
You wrote coarse when you should have written “course”. Bit of a Freudian slip there!

”Hebrew word 4039 means 'a roll'.
”What type of 'roll' ? So let's find out by investigating its etymology. Word 4039 comes from Hebrew word 1556 which is a primitive root that literally means "to roll". "Roll" means 'to turn, or rotate'. So the type of "roll" to which Hebrew word 4039 was derived, meant to turn or rotate.
In the sentence "roll of a book" this therefore indicates that the book in question has as one of its primitive characteristics - a turning or rotating aspect. Which is what has been used in Pegg's translation.
Result of search for "4039":
4039 mgillah meg-il-law' from 1556; a roll:--roll, volume.
Therefore the word has three meanings one of which in English refers to a book!

4040 mgillah meg-il-law' (Aramaic) corresponding to 4039:--roll.

A Classic example of cherry picking by Peqq, which does nothing for the credibility

Result of search for the English word "roll" in ancient Hebrew
1549 gillayown ghil-law-yone' or gilyown {ghil-yone'}; from 1540; a tablet for writing (as bare); by analogy, a mirror (as a plate):--glass, roll.

1556 galal gaw-lal' a primitive root; to roll (literally or figuratively):--commit, remove, roll (away, down, together), run down, seek occasion, trust, wallow.

4039 mgillah meg-il-law' from 1556; a roll:--roll, volume.

4040 mgillah meg-il-law' (Aramaic) corresponding to 4039:--roll.

5372 nirgan neer-gawn' from an unused root meaning to roll to pieces; a slanderer:--talebearer, whisperer.

5609 cphar sef-ar' (Aramaic) from a root corresponding to 5608; a book:--book, roll.

5844 `atah aw-taw' a primitive root; to wrap, i.e. cover, veil, cloth, or roll:--array self, be clad, (put a) cover (-ing, self), fill, put on, X surely, turn aside.

6424 palac paw-las' a primitive root; properly, to roll flat, i.e. prepare (a road); also to revolve, i.e. weigh (mentally):--make, ponder, weigh.

6428 palash paw-lash' a primitive root; to roll (in dust):--roll (wallow) self.

6801 tsanaph tsaw-naf' a primitive root; to wrap, i.e. roll or dress:--be attired, X surely, violently turn.

7088 qaphad kaw-fad' a primitive root; to contract, i.e. roll together:--cut off.

1556 is defined as

1556 galal gaw-lal' a primitive root; to roll (literally or figuratively):--commit, remove, roll (away, down, together), run down, seek occasion, trust, wallo

”ALSO”
Sorry I am not deaf!!!!
“Did you have your eyes shut or something when you typed out the words from Strong's Concordance ?!)”
I am not normally a intuitive person but I am sensing frustration in you writing!

Here again a classic attempt to fit the words to the facts, you write

1549 gillayown ghil-law-yone' or gilyown {ghil-yone'}; from 1540; a tablet for writing (as bare); by analogy, a mirror (as a plate):--glass, roll.
Strong defines it as,


”The Mormon witness calls what he is holding in his hands 'a plate'. This plate is reflective like a mirror. This Hebrew word contains a characteristic of the 'bare tablet used for writing'”.

(A compact disk looks bare on the back (silver), and is more reflective that its plastic case).
Unfortunately, from the testimony of the three witnesses
“And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates;”
From the testimony of the eight witnesses,
“That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands;”
Most importantly, the witnesses say that the plate have the appearance of Gold and not of silver as one would expect a CDRom to be. Moreover, they say there is as many leaves as Joseph Smith translated
Of course utilising the PPHC interpretation, then they are referring to the ACM CDRom!! But the plates are supposed to be the Book of Mormon!


5844 `atah aw-taw' a primitive root; to wrap, i.e. cover, veil, cloth, or roll:--array self, be clad, (put a) cover (-ing, self), fill, put on, X surely, turn aside.
"Turn aside" involves some type of turning (as in revolving).”
There is also the following connected to Word 5844, once again it casts a different picture to the one you wish to achieve.
“4594 ma`ateh mah-at-eh' from 5844; a vestment:--garment.”


You turn aside a page, a book, a newspaper, a sheet, a blanket a covering, they do not involve rotating it is you once again trying to fit the word to the facts

”6424 palac paw-las' a primitive root; properly, to roll flat, i.e. prepare (a road); also to revolve, i.e. weigh (mentally):--make, ponder, weigh.
"to roll flat" means it rolls flat (in the horizontal plane) {just like a compact disk}.
"also to revolve" indicates a revolving characteristic.”
If you look at what Strong has written, then the word makes sense but your version does not make any sense because when a CD is rotating around its central axis then by no stretch of the imagination could it be said to be rolling anywhere.


6801 tsanaph tsaw-naf' a primitive root; to wrap, i.e. roll or dress:--be attired, X surely, violently turn.
”I would hate to grab a cd from its drive while it is violently turning (revolving) !!”
It is I who must thank you for showing how the shallow the evidence of the PPHC is! If you open a music CD with a top door then you can see it spinning to a halt, but PC CDRom spins around a central axis and when the eject button is pressed, the axis is removed thus denying the disc any motive force and therefore when the disc comes out it is not spinning!

”I must thank you for this, as you have supplied four more words that affirm that the 'roll' of a book has characteristics of turning and rotating, plus it turns violently (as in great speed) and rolls in a horizontal aspect (ie. flat) as well as reflecting like a mirror.”
If what you say is true, then it shows that rather than have spent seven years reviewing the evidence then it was only five minutes. More to the point it merely confirms, once again, the truth of the quote say you distort words to fit your facts.


A compact disk does all these things !! This is what the Hebrews were describing in their use of the word "roll".
That is merely your opinion and not to be taken literally
quote:
But it is apparent that you are trying to introduce subject of the CDRom, but the basis of CDRom drive is that the CD spins around a central axis above the laser reader head. So, to say that the CD rolls within the drive is quite incorrect.
OK, lets use the direct Hebrew meanings. This 'book' violently turns (which a normal scroll does not), it rolls flat (revolves horizontally), AND this particular book is reported by John as being read from the backside and written within.
Rev 5:1 "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals"

.”The ACM cd-rom does all these things plus the bare side reflects like a mirror. It has its information within, and as you state "it spins around a central axis above the laser reader head"
The problem with what you say, is that the words taken from Rev says a book not a plate or mirror.

(or should that be violently rolls flat around a central axis).
Everyday usage says it spins around the central axis because that is what it does. You are trying to fit the meaning to the facts.
quote:
Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that it is clear that you have not actually read my original posting but have just copied and pasted the same stuff.
“No. I do not comment upon things that I have not studied.”
A weak excuse and shows that you claims to be a research are somewhat false.
“Also, quoting the stories from the politically based Talmud when studying word by word descriptions from the Bible is a red herring.”
Now we get to the good stuff! All because the Talmud and Jewish tradition prove you wrong!
“In essence, you are trying to use a set of politically and religiously motivated writings to confirm the validity of another set of religious stories (whose motives and source of origin are in question).”
Again, you decry evidence proving you wrong! Also, where is your proof that the Talmud is politically motivated or are you showing us your anti-Semitic tendencies?
“You are using, and continue to use the religious context that Pegg is saying is wrong.”
As pointed out before it is important to the belief in the ACM story is to accept Pegg’s interpretation.
“Until you sit with the Ancients cd-rom running in front of you and view and compare each picture (and sequences of pictures and sounds) with its (their) comparable description(s) from an ancient text,”
I have seen enough of the website and comments of others on other forums to realize that there is absolutely truth what so ever in the supposed discoveries.

.”then of course you are going to keep quoting what you have been taught (ie. the religious context that has been taught over thousands of years).”
All because putting it to its correct context it proves you wrong!!!

”Ignored the evidence…" - Just because you keep jumping up and down repeating yourself - doesn't make Ronald Pegg wrong. You are giving your opinion as to what you believe the words and contexts mean, in comparison to those words with the few pictures that I have described and/or presented on the website. But just because your understanding is in contrast to Pegg's conclusions doesn't make him wrong. You keep cutting and pasting the very texts that Pegg says have been misinterpreted, plus you continue to use those same misinterpreted meanings as 'evidence' against what Pegg reports. In some cases it is not even evidence, it is your understanding of what you either believe or have been told concerning the 'stories' about those certain texts and passages.”
The whole tone of the passage sounds defensive therefore it would seem that something to be troubling you,.


“As the original text that was eventually translated into English was originally from a condensed Egyptian version of Hebrew, then it is prudent to use the original Hebrew meanings (as can be found in Strong's Concordance) rather than the modern 18000 American (/English) interpretation.”

The major problem with that and it seems to been missed by the PPHC, it may say all of that in the Book of Mormon, but the book was written by Joseph Smith without the aid of any mysterious tablets or divine intervention, so you are basing you theory on a piece of fiction!!!!!!!

Just a quick thought, the PPHC uses bibcal references in order to support their claim that the ancients saw the ACM cd.

But let us not forget that the OT that it was complied by scribes recording the oral history of the Hebrews. Therefore the stories they contain is by their very nature suspect, since some may in fact be false.

So, by basing you theories on suspect material then it is clear that by no stretch of the imagination could the “discoveries” of the PPHC be true.

quote:

in your posting you said “Erasmus rewrote some of the ancient Greek manuscripts on behalf of the Roman Empire.” But you have not produced any evidence to support that claim, nor as we know shall you.

Excuse me…but I gave you the page number of the book that contains the information I cited, its publisher, its domicile, and its publishing date.

I said

quote:

I have viewed a 13th century German Bible and found that it contains the same addition (1John 5:7-8) as the English KJV Bible.

to which you retorted

quote:

Are you now trying to tell us that you can read early German? Sad to say the reality is, that no such document exists.

Why do you continue to say things of which you have no knowledge ?
The German migrant to whom I spoke showed me in his original 13th century German Bible that had been handed down through his family and that had survived the bombing of Germany during the war, that 1:John5:7-8 was there written in German (with the additions) as it is written in English in many modern Bibles.

You are saying so many things of which you have no first hand knowledge, and are just giving your opinion on what I say. That's OK - we are all allowed to have an opinion, but you continue to cross the line by personally attacking me.

I give you the source of my citations, yet you still continue with your barrage of rhetoric based upon your personal views - using the call-cry of 'but you gave no evidence'.

What do other people think, or are they too busy actually downloading, reading and viewing the evidence and explanations that can be found on the various PPHC-SG websites ?

Thank you for your posting.

“Excuse me…but I gave you the page number of the book that contains the information I cited, its publisher, its domicile, and its publishing date.”


That is a quote saying that Erasmus used the Comma, it does not prove you claim that Erasmus, either destroyed or corrupted first century manuscripts on behalf of the Roman Empire.

Are you now trying to tell us that you can read early German? Sad to say the reality is, that no such document exists.
Why do you continue to say things of which you have no knowledge ?

Easiest trick in the book! It made you provide the material which otherwise would not be forth coming. However, even that info is its self suspect.


Now of this bible,did you check its authenticity ? Where was the bible copied? Was the bible in Multivolume or paris style?

I dont suppose you will answer them.
That's OK - we are all allowed to have an opinion, but you continue to cross the line by personally attacking me.


Oh ER!, What ever do mean there, good buddy? Let the who is without sin cast the first stone!

Lets us take some examples from you,

“Did you have your eyes shut or something when you typed out the words from Strong's Concordance ?!)”


“you are trying to use a set of politically and religiously motivated writings to confirm the validity of another set of religious stories (whose motives and source of origin are in question).”

“then of course you are going to keep quoting what you have been taught (ie. the religious context that has been taught over thousands of years).”

“You keep cutting and pasting the very texts that Pegg says have been misinterpreted, plus you continue to use those same misinterpreted meanings as 'evidence' against what Pegg reports. In some cases it is not even evidence, it is your understanding of what you either believe or have been told concerning the 'stories' about those certain texts and passages.”

I am sure if I studied for ten seven years I could find more.
“I give you the source of my citations, yet you still continue with your barrage of rhetoric based upon your personal views - using the call-cry of 'but you gave no evidence'.

You have only given certain citations, to give an example, you claimed, that Erasmus was involved with the destruction of first century copies of the bible on the behalf of the Roman Empire.

All you did was change your testimony to say that “In my original post, for the word "destroyed" read 'destroyed or corrupted” You may well have included a citation saying that Erasmus used the “Comma.” In his Greek edition of the NT but as has been shown he did so because he thought it was in the Vulgate edition. That does not prove that he, in your words, destroyed first century bible on behalf of the Roman Empire.

May I remind you of something?


“I appreciate your questions, all of which need to be answered in order for Mr Pegg's claims to be clarified and reported upon.”

The sad thing is, you have not answered all of the questions asked of you and where subsequent questions have been asked of you, they are ignored.

That my assertion that “you have not provided evidence” is justified.


“What do other people think,”
Bad sign there. Is something troubling you?

“or are they too busy actually downloading, reading and viewing the evidence and explanations that can be found on the various PPHC-SG websites ?”

At the moment, the counter at the bottom of the News letters page reads “57” On the